mastablasta wrote:I'm sure the Port Authority won't be paying a dime to Jersey City. The riders of the PATH system will be footing the bill. I'm sure there's a fare increase to pay for this already in the works.

PATH is very affordable. Maybe a fare increase will lead to less overcrowding...

Jersey City would collect millions in tax payments from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey under a proposed settlement of the city's four-year-old lawsuit against the bi-state agency.

The Port Authority would also pay the city $17.8 million for a Downtown Jersey City property that is expected to be the new home of a PATH substation, if the settlement wins council approval next month.

After the 1988 reval, the city council complained that the Port Authority was giving Newark $20 million, granted it does have the airport, while we got very little. There are two different line items in the budget on payments from the Port Authority, so I will look them up when the budget is available to the public.

Jersey City ends $400M suit against Port Authority, gets $17.75M in land deal

By John Heinis/Hudson County View

“Today’s announcement of our agreement with the Port Authority is the major step in reshaping our relationship with an entity that is a major force in Jersey City,” Mayor Steven Fulop said in a statement.

“This resolution is a positive one for our residents, bringing over $35 million to Jersey City as well as a renewed commitment to several important projects.”

The mayor’s office released the details of what the settlement will entail, including a $17,750,000 payment from the Port Authority to the city for the ownership of the triangle parcel on Washington Street, which will be the site of new PATH transformers.

Port Authority agreement with the city goes back more than 60 years while this is great news, Port Authority got off with a small payment. Put it like this - the average brownstone in downtown JC was probably paying less than one thousand a year in taxes when the Port Authority started their payments to JC. So the increase of 70% is good news but the Port Authority's officials are probably smiling right now.

JERSEY CITY — Nearly four years after Jersey City filed a $400 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the two sides have agreed to settle the dispute.

The deal comes one month after both sides met in a federal courthouse in Newark for a three-year hearing that saw the big-state agency attempt to get the lawsuit thrown out.

There are few public details about the agreement, which neither side agreed to provide. A Port Authority spokesman said its board of commissioners is scheduled to consider approving it at a meeting next week.

In a statement, Jersey City said the Port Authority has agreed to pay the city $17.8 million for the ownership of a Washington Street parcel that will be the site of new PATH transformers; transfer ownership of the Powerhouse building to the city; increase tax payments it makes to the city by 70 percent annually; and perform a study on the feasibility of a PATH station in the city's Marion section.

By The Associated Press The Associated Presson February 18, 2015 at 5:37 PM, updated February 18, 2015 at 6:56 PM

NEWARK -- A $400 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey over property taxes in Jersey City can proceed, a federal judge ruled today.

U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton denied the Port Authority's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, though she dismissed two counts in the nine-count complaint and ruled that they can be re-filed.

Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop sued the Port Authority last May for what he claimed were unpaid taxes, penalties and fees for dozens of Port Authority-owned properties in the city. At the time, Fulop estimated taxes, payments in lieu of taxes and other payments would historically yield about $315 million in additional tax revenue and about $18 million per year.

The Port Authority has broken its silence over the $400 million lawsuit Jersey City filed against the bi-state agency in May, saying in new court documents that it denies almost all of the claims the city has made.

In a document filed in federal court last week, the Port Authority spends nearly 40 pages denying the city's claims that Jersey City has suffered "astronomical" revenue losses because the Port Authority pays little to no taxes on the dozens of properties it owns in Jersey City.

The agency argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed in its entirety and the Port Authority should be awarded legal fees with interest.

The document is a boilerplate response that offers dozens of arguments for why the suit should be dismissed, including that the city has no standing, the court has no jurisdiction and taxing the Port Authority's properties would violate state statutes. It's not clear what the Port Authority's overall legal argument will be if the suit heads to court.

Jersey City today filed a $400 million lawsuit against the Port Authority, alleging the bi-state agency owes back taxes on the dozens of properties it owns citywide.

Mayor Steve Fulop revealed to The Jersey Journal six months ago that he planned to file the suit, and in a statement issued by his spokeswoman today, he said the city "will not be bullied or pushed around" by the Port Authority.

Months negotiation between the Port Authority and the city have been unsuccessful, according to Fulop.

The city also intends to pursue legal action to block the Port Authority's planned $118 million waste transfer station at Greenville Yards on the city's southern end.

Fulop made JC look like a brat who doesn't want to follow the rules at school saying to his teacher that he's going to tell Daddy if the teacher doesn't let him do whatever he wants to do. If the city agreed to the lower taxes, tough sh!t, that's the way the real world works. If there are legal agreements in place, that's an unfortunate loss for the city but it's what the city agreed to, whether the current administration likes it or not.

Besides, raising taxes on PA properties is just going to translate into higher fares for those who ride the PATH and/or an extended delay in the expansion of Grove Street station (among other things).

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal on February 18, 2014 at 8:00 AM

Will the public be denied a chance to see Jersey City vs. the Port Authority hit a courtroom?

Mayor Steve Fulop last year announced he planned to file a $400 million lawsuit against the bistate agency, accusing it of stiffing the city on tax payments for the 32 properties the Port Authority owns here.

At the time of his announcement, Fulop told The Jersey Journal he threatened to sue because all his attempts to meet with the Port Authority over the issue were ignored.

But three months later there’s still no suit. And that’s because both the city and the Port Authority say they have been communicating about the impasse and talks are going well.

City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said Weiner Lesniak, the law firm hired to represent the city for $150 an hour, at a cost not to exceed $50,000, sent a “formal demand letter” to the Port Authority, and the agency responded.

“We’ve had an initial meeting with the Port Authority’s new leadership, which was moderately productive,” Morrill said.

“The Port Authority is committed to working with its host communities on all matters that impact their residents and our discussion with Jersey City Mayor Fulop was a productive beginning to what I am sure will be a continuing dialogue with him and his administration,” she said in an email from a Port Authority spokesman.

Well, what about having a serious real dialogue about repair schedules/train frequency/WE closure acknowledging the contribution commuters make towards her and Mr Samson salaries and pensions?

Will the public be denied a chance to see Jersey City vs. the Port Authority hit a courtroom?

Mayor State Fulop last year announced he planned to file a $400 million lawsuit against the bi-state agency, accusing it of stiffing the city on tax payments for the 32 properties the Port Authority owns here.

At the time of his announcement, Fulop told The Jersey Journal he threatened to sue because all his attempts to meet with the Port Authority over the issue were ignored.

But, three months later, and there's still no suit. And that's because both the city and the Port Authority say they have been communicating about the impasse and talks, they say, are going well.

City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said Weiner Lesniak, the law firm hired to represent the city for $150 an hour (not to exceed $50,000), sent a “formal demand letter” to the Port Authority and the agency responded.

JSleeze wrote:You know what accounts for a nice chunk of abated properties? Churches. Not "abated" as in "paying PILOTs" but "abated" as in the true sense of the word - not paying anything. Would be great if these profit-generating organizations paid taxes.

And this would hurt the poor most, as many rely on the services provided by religious groups-hospitals, charities for the poor, food banks, outreach. If they paid taxes the funds needed to support such things would diminish.

We don't see the church's income statements. I'd be curious to know how much of the money they take in/taxes they don't pay goes to helping the poor and how much towards helping themselves.

JSleeze wrote:You know what accounts for a nice chunk of abated properties? Churches. Not "abated" as in "paying PILOTs" but "abated" as in the true sense of the word - not paying anything. Would be great if these profit-generating organizations paid taxes.

And this would hurt the poor most, as many rely on the services provided by religious groups-hospitals, charities for the poor, food banks, outreach. If they paid taxes the funds needed to support such things would diminish.